Another Judgment Day for Amanda Knox

The Supreme Court in Italy will rule Friday on yet another appeal in the Amanda Knox case.

If she loses, will she be extradited? Will Italy even file the request? I don't think given the unique and twisted history of the case, disputed facts and the different and lesser protections afforded defendants by the Italian legal system, which allows prosecutors to appeal not guilty verdicts and according to some news reports, considers jeopardy not to attach until final judgment is rendered after appeal, the U.S. would grant an extradition request. Nor do I think a diplomatic showdown will result if it refuses. This case needs to be put to rest.

< Utah Reinstates Death by Firing Squad | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This just in -- (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 04:57:40 PM EST
    Amanda Knox murder conviction overturned by Italy high court

    ROME (AP) -- Italy's highest court has overturned the murder conviction against Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend, bringing to a definitive end the high-profile case.

    The decision by the supreme Court of Cassation is the final ruling in the case, ending the long legal battle waged by Knox and co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito. Both Knox, who was awaiting the verdict in her hometown of Seattle, and Sollecito have long maintained their innocence.

    The supreme Court of Cassation overturned last year's convictions by a Florence appeals court, and declined to order another trial. The decision means the judges, after thoroughly examining the case, concluded that a conviction could not be supported by the evidence. Their reasoning will be released within 90 days.

    I hope she wins (none / 0) (#1)
    by McBain on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 12:30:00 PM EST
    If she loses, I don't think there's any chance we would send her back to Italy. She's already served time for a crime she, most likely, didn't commit. Italy looks ridiculous on this one.

    The real question is what will happen to her former Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito?  I don't believe he had anything to do with Meredith Kercher's murder either but he won't be protected by our country like Knox.  

    Knox Will be Fine... (none / 0) (#2)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 01:09:34 PM EST
    ...right up until we need something form Italy, then she will be pawn number one.  She can only be truly free if the appeal goes her way.

    Sollecito is Italian and had his passport revoked long ago.

    From everything I have read, I can't imagine either one being found guilty of anything.  In this last appeal Sollecito tried to distance himself from Knox.  So there is a possibility one is found guilty.


    I think they need to convict someone (none / 0) (#3)
    by McBain on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 03:38:49 PM EST
    in order to save face. Although I read a couple books on it, I've forgotten some of the facts of this case.  I do remember the lead prosecutor seemed crazy and obsessed with satanic orgy killings.

    From What I Understand... (none / 0) (#4)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 04:00:54 PM EST
    ...Italians in general think she did it and want her convicted.

    It's not like someone isn't in prison for the murder:

    (Rudy) Guede was tried separately at a fast-track trial; in October 2008 he was found guilty of having sexually assaulted and murdered Kercher. He obtained a reduction in his sentence and is currently eligible for day release from prison.

    I see the verdict is delayed until Friday.


    Except (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 07:33:41 AM EST
    The US signed an extradition treaty with Italy.  We've broken it before, and could again, but there's the little problem of the next time - the next time we want someone extradited from Italy, or anywhere else (like the UK, for example, who has a vested interest in this case, since it was a British citizen who was murdered and a British family that is demanding justice).

    They have (none / 0) (#5)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 05:13:04 PM EST
    the killer of this girl -- he's already in prison and yet they are on the verge of letting him out.

    This is a country where Mafia bosses roam the streets and yet they want to throw this girl in prison on trumped up evidence.

    I'm boycotting everything "Italian" until the Italian Justice System clears her.

    No Italian imports. No Italian wine. No Italian cooking programs. No Sophia Loren movies. No reruns of The Godfather. And No cannolis.

    Don't punish yourself too severely (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Peter G on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 09:03:31 PM EST
    Make an exception for cannolis.

    You're right (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 10:38:01 PM EST
    I'll leave the Beretta but take the cannolis.

    Yeah... (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 09:10:07 AM EST
    ...I'll skip the Ferrari this year and refuse to wear my Bruno Magli's.

    Good to see Jeralyn and others (none / 0) (#8)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 12:47:20 AM EST
    say they don't believe Knox should or would be extradited. My views, as a non-criminal lawyer, are similar. Italian courts seem to have had enough shots at her. The jeopardy thing bugs me, even though I know Italy doesn't have the same concept. Not asking for extradition is an interesting idea. I'm assuming the high court will decide to convict her, or whatever they are deciding, but maybe they won't. If Italy goes after her again, I really think that would impact my view of Italy.

    Ana interesting perspectivr (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 07:58:37 AM EST
    on how we really don't know what happened because of the media circus that has plagued these trials.

    The American TV networks, especially, were generous to the Knox family, paying for airline tickets and meals when trials were in session. On the night of one of the verdicts, a high-powered American producer even babysat Knox's little sisters in exchange for God only knows what. And because Kercher's family rarely came to trial - after all, no media outlets were paying their airfare - the victim slipped off the front page.

    We, the Italian-speaking media covering the case from Perugia, were unable to be seen to be covering the case objectively, and instead we were grouped into camps that became like extreme political parties: "innocentisti", who thought Knox was being railroaded, or "colpevolisti" who thought she wasn't. I received hate mail from strangers accusing me of not sticking up for the American girl, some wishing me "a fate like Meredith's". I even got a nasty note from Knox's stepfather telling me I seemed like someone "who was abused as a child".

    Things were drastically different in the beginning, before the first verdict. I remember drinking at a back table of the Joyce Pub in Perugia with Knox's mother, who, distraught and desperate, sobbed as she held my hand and pleaded with me to believe her daughter. She knew all the journalists by name but said she never read anyone's stories unless they were pro-Amanda. That was back when even she could be seen talking to the colpevolisti.

    All of that changed when more big name media types got involved, and when the idea of an American "innocent abroad" made good morning TV. The story lost its way completely when Knox's PR firm started trading family interviews for positive coverage. If you quoted both sides or mentioned damning court evidence, you could bet you'd hear that they didn't like the reporting. Soon people who needed the Knox family on TV only quoted their side of the story, and the truth disappeared for good.

    Well The Guy... (none / 0) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 09:23:59 AM EST
    ...who was actually convicted of the crime has changed his story, Amanda wasn't there, yes she was.

    I don't think my opinion has much to do with her being America other than watching a judicial system that doesn't seems to take forensics seriously.  Public opinion seems to hold more weight than the facts.

    I just don't see the proof beyond the word of a convicted murderer.  She lied, no doubt, but damn, that isn't much.

    The Italian police are to blame IMO for any cloudiness in this case.  Obviously her mom isn't a reliable source of a murder some 2000 miles away.  I mean seriously, that quote is almost Onion like.  And Idea that people helping them, and not the victims family has nothing to do with anything.  I am sure if an American was killed, someone would foot the bill as well, but again that has nothing to do with the actual verdict.

    What is a little odd is the victims family name is my GF's family name.  So it's really don't like writing the name, it freaks me out a bit.


    The point being (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 09:29:53 AM EST
    The stuff you have been hearing about and reading about this case is kind of suspect.

    And not only did she lie, she accused an innocent man and perjured herself.  Not sure why we should believe anything she has said after that.

    And the real point was there is a forgotten victim in all of this - Meredith Kercher.


    there are sites with all the pleadings (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 07:52:53 AM EST
    and details of physical evidence, most of which have been translated into English. One appears to be by a Knox supporter and one by a Kercher supporter. Anyone wanting to know both sides of the case could read each, skipping the commentary and just reviewing the documents. (I just skimmed both sites.)

    BTW (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 09:32:38 AM EST
    I just don't see the proof beyond the word of a convicted murderer.

    As of right now, Amanda Knox also is a convicted murderer, so, according to you, we shouldn't believe her.


    being a liar (none / 0) (#15)
    by CST on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 09:48:40 AM EST
    doesn't make you guilty of murder.

    "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."."

    She doesn't have to prove she's innocent, they have to prove she's guilty - which it sounds like they haven't done.


    Well, like I said (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 09:53:09 AM EST
    As of this moment, she is a convicted murderer.

    But it was Scott who said we shouldn't take the word of a convicted murderer, so, by his logic, we should not believe anything she says about that night.


    I believe he said (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CST on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 09:55:30 AM EST
    that was the only "proof" that they have and it's not very good proof.

    We don't have to believe a word Amanda Knox says to think that they don't have proof that she killed someone.


    We have a conviction (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 10:02:06 AM EST
    and an acquittal (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CST on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 10:06:52 AM EST
    Which under U.S. law would mean this is over and done.

    Plus - a conviction isn't proof of anything that happened at the crime scene


    Well no, not exactly (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    Under U.S. constitutional law, an acquittal by a jury (or by the judge before the jury renders its verdict) is final. But the opinion of an appellate court that the jury was wrong, the evidence was insufficient, and the defendant should have been acquitted, is treated as legal (as opposed to factual) ruling which is subject to further appeals and thus to possible reversal (reinstating the verdict of guilty by the jury). The same is true of the trial judge's decision to set aside the jury's verdict as unsupported by the trial evidence. If an appellate determination of insufficient evidence -- the trial judge's post-verdict ruling to the same effect -- is not appealed further by the prosecution, on the other hand, no new trial is then allowed.

    I was trying to respond to CST #19 (none / 0) (#31)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 03:11:21 PM EST
    not to Reconstructionist. Sorry for any confusion.

    And the conviction was reinstated (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 10:12:50 AM EST
    Her status at this moment is convicted murderer, facing 27.5 years.

    And her alibi and the strongest part of her defense - her then boyfriend who says she was with him the entire time - now says she wasn't there.  And phone records seem to back him up.

    And of course, this wasn't tried under US law, so, except for possible extradition wrangling, has absolutely nothing to do with anything.


    it has everything to do (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 10:14:38 AM EST
    with how a lot of opinions on this blog are shaped.

    Again - I'm not concerned about her alibi, or her defense.  I'm concerned about the prosecution.  She doesn't have to prove her innocence, they have to prove her guilt.


    Except, (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 10:25:03 AM EST
    (As of right now), they DID prove her guilt - even without her crumbling alibi.

    I think it's more important what really happened as opposed to the opinions on this blog, which as we know, aren't always correct. The Italian Supreme Court may eventuallyagree with you, in which case, then yes, it's done and over with. But your opinion, and those of like-minded people on this blog, based on reading American media which are extremely biased towards Ms. Knox, is not going to decide anything.



    yikes jb (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by sj on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 01:41:06 PM EST
    just stop. Or better yet just have any new comments just be link to one of these.  You are sounding as repetitive and "la la la -- I can't hear you" as is typical if jim.

    Between that cr@p happening on this blog and happening at work I'm ready to run screaming into the night. Or day.


    a conviction (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 10:29:17 AM EST
    is not proof - those are two different things.

    A conviction (none / 0) (#27)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 01:52:25 PM EST
     is premised on "proof."

      Proof does not mean that every single person with whatever level of knowledge, great or small, of the case is convinced beyond all doubt. By that reckoning nothing has ever been "proven."

       Proof means that the fact-finder has concluded that the admissible evidence suffices to reach the conclusion  that each element necessary for conviction has been established to the degree that meets the  proponent's burden.


    That is primarily because (none / 0) (#25)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 12:48:12 PM EST
     here, defendants can (and usually do if they opt for trial) opt for trial by jury. The prosecution cannot appeal a jury verdict on weight of or sufficiency of the evidence grounds because in OUR system that evaluation is entrusted to the jury and the jury is considered a protection or shield against the power of the government/state. The defendant has constitutional rights which allow for a conviction to be reviewed on sufficiency/weigh of evidence grounds, but the prosecution does not. (Note that prosecutors in the USA can appeal certain legal rulings made at the trial court level (the extent varies among jurisdictions), so acquittal at the trial court level does not always mean it is "over."

      Systems that do not have trial by jury, can't be fairly viewed using our perspective. In Italy (and many other nations) higher courts are reviewing the  factual determinations made by inferior courts and the systems are designed for that happen regardless of whether the determination favored the defendant of prosecution.

      I prefer our system for a host of reasons, but I have noticed that here We often see people castigating our way of doing things when it results in an outcome they don't like and suggesting our reliance on juries is a worse method of adjudication than used elsewhere-- at least, until people disagree with an outcome produced by one of those systems.

      One might suggest these are not rational criticisms of structural aspects of different systems so much as they are emotional outbursts provoked whenever certain people disagree with the results produced in one of the very few (and often very unrepresentative) cases that get a lot of publicity.

       No system is perfect, or can be perfect. No design can change the realities that individual humans must act to implement any design and that humans are imperfect.


    Please... (none / 0) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 02:10:33 PM EST
    ...I never said anything about taking her word for it, I even mentioned she lied.

    The evidence points to the guy sitting in jail and none of it connects the other two IMO.


    Looks Like The Judges Concur... (none / 0) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 05:02:04 PM EST
    ...not enough evidence to support guilt.

    Yes.... telling lies didn't convict Casey Anthony (none / 0) (#36)
    by McBain on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 02:22:23 PM EST
    of murder.  Jurors usually take their jobs seriously and follow the law.  

    I don't remember if the jury in the original Knox trial was sequestered? If not, it might explain the guilty verdict.


    What's the physical evidence (none / 0) (#24)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 10:48:20 AM EST
    that Knox was there and part of the crime? Is there any? Some minor DNA on a knife in someone else's apartment found 6 or 7 weeks later. In such a physical and bloody murder, it would seem that there would be considerable other physical evidence.

    This was never about physical evidence (none / 0) (#33)
    by McBain on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 04:45:27 PM EST
    It was about getting the American.  It was about a crazy prosecutor obsessed with satanic sex rituals. It was about the perceived odd behavior or Knox.  

    It was an incredibly weak case to begin with but she was guilty in the court of public opinion so the crazy prosecutor could get away with nonsense.   I'd like to say this  never happens in America but it did happen to the West Memphis Three.  


    Here is the breakdown of (none / 0) (#29)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 02:13:32 PM EST
    the physical evidence:

    The defence pointed out that no shoe prints, clothing fibers, hairs, fingerprints, skin cells or DNA of Knox were found on Kercher's body, clothes, handbag or anywhere in the bedroom.

    Guede's shoe prints, fingerprints, and DNA were found in Kercher's bedroom, where the murder took place. Guede's DNA was on the strap of her bra, which had been torn off, and his DNA was found on a vaginal swab taken from Kercher's body. Guede's bloody palm print was on a pillow that had been placed under Kercher's hips. Guede's DNA mixed with Kercher's was on the left sleeve of her bloody sweatshirt and in bloodstains on the inside of her shoulder bag, which 300 euros and credit cards had been stolen from.

    The prosecution alleged that all forensic traces in the bedroom which incriminated Knox had been wiped away by her and Sollecito.

    Yeh sure -- Amanda knew which fingerprints, DNA, hair fibers were hers and only wiped those away, making sure to leave Guede's fingerprints, footprints, and DNA at the scene undisturbed.

    And they did this without the benefit of a crime lab, and the Italian court falls for this excuse???

    Guede refused to answer questions at the trial.

    Gosh -- I wonder why??? Everything in this case pointed to Rudy Guede as the sole killer -- nothing pointed to Amanda Knox or anyone else.